Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

• IggyPride00

  

  I understand that the unions will throw tens of millions of dollars into the campaign to repeal this -- because they have no other choice.

  From what I have read the plan is to have it thrown out by voter referendum in the November election this year.
  
  Off year elections are when shit like this usually is really successful because the only people voting are those who are politically active and motivated, and in this case it would be a riled up union base.
  
  In Wisconsin they are planning a recall vote (which Ohio doesn't have) of a ton of Republican officials to throw them out as labor has been whipped up into a frenzy over this.
  
  If these ballot initiatives are successful across the country it is going to stop alot of these governors dead in their tracks moving forward from doing things like this that are deemed controversial and job approval killers.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  
  many others will have for voting for repealing this noxious bill that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by

  
  Isn't the "average everyday American" already shouldering the financial burden?
  
  How will this bill make things more burdensome? I know blocks people will have to speak for themselves now... but...?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  IggyPride00;731755 wrote:From what I have read the plan is to have it thrown out by voter referendum in the November election this year.
  
  Off year elections are when shit like this usually is really successful because the only people voting are those who are politically active and motivated, and in this case it would be a riled up union base.
  
  In Wisconsin they are planning a recall vote (which Ohio doesn't have) of a ton of Republican officials to throw them out as labor has been whipped up into a frenzy over this.
  
  If these ballot initiatives are successful across the country it is going to stop alot of these governors dead in their tracks moving forward from doing things like this that are deemed controversial and job approval killers.

  
  Like I said: they'll be spending tens of millions of dollars in advertisements to try and portray this law as being anti-family. They've already laid the groundwork with their talking points; having everyone interviewed saying it was anti-middle class.
  
  It's true that off year elections are when stuff like this can more easily be passed, but I am hopeful that enough "average" voters turn out to support keeping the law. If the unions are successful, then we just go back to square one and taxpayers continue to get screwed via the collective bargaining process.
• Glory Days

  

  sleeper;731635 wrote:1) If the poor community doesn't value their fire department and elects officials who don't do a good job, that is the community's problem(or choice). If they can't afford to pay for a good fire department, then they WON'T get a good fire department. Or we could just do it your way and pay firefighters over bloated salaries/benefits regardless if the community can pay for it.
  
  2) The fact that Columbus pays less than surrounding suburbs could be for a variety of factors, none of which neither you nor me know. The fact that it pays less than the market could be a glut of firefighters, higher benefits, or less areas of service that each station needs to protect. The beauty of free markets is, we don't have to know the factors behind the labor discrepancies, the market will ultimately fall of the correct price when unions are finally eliminated.

  1.) your statement would be true if poor communities paid the same as surrounding wealthier communities. Since they don’t, where do you get the “over bloated salaries” statement? How can it be over bloated when the city is paying the fire fighters only what they can afford to pay them?
  
  2.) that you or me know? Its called Columbus doesn’t have enough money to pay them the same as the suburbs. Columbus needs more fire fighters than smaller communities so it has to pay each fire fighter less. You seem to think unions are forcing Columbus for example, to pay their firefighters the same wages as Westerville pays theirs etc.
  

  sleeper;731637 wrote:And to answer your question, no, I don't think a receptionist of a successful company should be paid more than an unsuccessful company, all else equal. If she is a 9 out of 10 receptionist, then she should be paid as a 9 out of 10 receptionist everywhere.

  Well the thing, that isn’t how it works is it. Two 9 out of 10 receptionist working for different companies get paid differently. It may not be a huge difference, but a successful company will pay more.
  

  believer;731641 wrote:Let's say the city and its residents are living through tough economic times. Jobs are scarce in the city and the tax-base is stretched very thin.
  The existing well-paid fire fighters - represented of course by union thugs - are demanding more pay. The city leadership says we cannot afford the pay increases so the thug goes back to the membership and tells them to walk.
  The existing fire fighters making - say - $40,000 a year on average plus generous public employee bennies walk off their jobs in protest. They stay off their jobs for weeks. The public grows concerned so the city leadership decides to hire replacements (scabs) and the replacements are decent hard working folks who have been unable to find jobs in their fair city. Hell, they're willing to do it for $30,000 a year, pay $300 per month for an average health care package similar to those in the private sector, and may participate if they wish in a 401K retirement option....without union representation.
  The city leadership just saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and the city is now less likely to burn to the ground.
  Whatever the market will bear.

  You are forgetting the cost of training those new employees and finding people to train them. So really you aren’t saving money at all. Plus, police and fire really cant strike anyway, especially over wages.
  

  dwccrew;731643 wrote:
  What other choice do they have? If the money isn't there, how can they pay?

  That’s how it works now. Why do you think public employees in poor cities get paid less than their equivalent in rich cities?
  So what do you think about the military? Should pay increases by time in service be eliminated there too? What about the national guard?
• sleeper

  

  1.) your statement would be true if poor communities paid the same as surrounding wealthier communities. Since they don’t, where do you get the “over bloated salaries” statement? How can it be over bloated when the city is paying the fire fighters only what they can afford to pay them?

  Then what is the problem? That is exactly how it should work and is exactly the purpose of this bill.
  

  2.) that you or me know? Its called Columbus doesn’t have enough money to pay them the same as the suburbs. Columbus needs more fire fighters than smaller communities so it has to pay each fire fighter less. You seem to think unions are forcing Columbus for example, to pay their firefighters the same wages as Westerville pays theirs etc.

  Well then the Union doesn't serve any purpose. You should be for the bill, you won't have to pay unions dues anymore!
• gut

  Glory Days;731526 wrote:Seriously? Yeah, that would work until criminals come back when there are less officers on the street.

  
  Ummm, no the point is doing their job more efficiently gets the same result with less officers, meaning more to go around for fewer cops. I realize the concept of efficiency gains might be foreign and unpalatable to some union folks.
• believer

  

  gut;732170 wrote:I realize the concept of efficiency gains might be foreign and unpalatable to some union folks.

  True. My annual performance evaluation and bonuses are directly tied to finding and achieving efficiencies. Needless to say we are a very profitable non-union shop. Unionists would have a meltdown in that environment.
• Glory Days

  

  sleeper;732157 wrote:Then what is the problem? That is exactly how it should work and is exactly the purpose of this bill.
  Well then the Union doesn't serve any purpose. You should be for the bill, you won't have to pay unions dues anymore!

  Haha that is exactly my point, much of what you and others are saying, already takes place. There are big misconceptions out there. No the union does serve purposes, especially when it comes to police, one is they help provide legal support. Especially when dirt bag criminals bring frivolous lawsuits against cops which would bankrupt the average person trying to defend themselves.

  gut;732170 wrote:Ummm, no the point is doing their job more efficiently gets the same result with less officers, meaning more to go around for fewer cops. I realize the concept of efficiency gains might be foreign and unpalatable to some union folks.

  Yeah, that works when making widgets, but you fail to realize that doesn’t exactly work with policing or firefighting.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;732153 wrote:That’s how it works now. Why do you think public employees in poor cities get paid less than their equivalent in rich cities?
  So what do you think about the military? Should pay increases by time in service be eliminated there too? What about the national guard?

  
  I think the military works fine as far as how our troops are paid. There is a lot of wasteful spending within the military budget though. The military is not unionized so it really isn't a fair comparison of the wasteful spending that municipal governments create. Military budgets have a much wider tax base (national). Municipalities don't have the luxury of hitting every tax base up like the military does. So I'm not sure why you have brought that up, if anything, it weakens your position.
• fish82

  

  Glory Days;732183 wrote:Haha that is exactly my point, much of what you and others are saying, already takes place. There are big misconceptions out there. No the union does serve purposes, especially when it comes to police, one is they help provide legal support. Especially when dirt bag criminals bring frivolous lawsuits against cops which would bankrupt the average person trying to defend themselves.
  
  Yeah, that works when making widgets, but you fail to realize that doesn’t exactly work with policing or firefighting.

  90% of real world job/salary reviews are completely subjective. Does your boss like you and think you did a good job this year? Congrats...4% for you. No? Sorry, better luck next year.
  
  Welcome to life in the private sector. Enjoy.
• bigkahuna

  Just watched a documentary called The Cartel on Netflix. It was about the out of control spending on New Jersey's public school system.
  
  One Superintendent retired with a Severance Package of $740,000 along with a yearly pension of $120,000. I thought it was interesting, and it reminded me of this discussion, so I though I'd share it.
• wkfan

  bigkahuna;732260 wrote:Just watched a documentary called The Cartel on Netflix. It was about the out of control spending on New Jersey's public school system.
  
  One Superintendent retired with a Severance Package of $740,000 along with a yearly pension of $120,000. I thought it was interesting, and it reminded me of this discussion, so I though I'd share it.

  
  While I completly agree that any severence package and pension like this for a school district superintendent is absurd.......
  
  Please remember that the superintendent is not a member of the local teachers union, so don't blame this package on any organized body of teachers.
  
  Put the blame squarely on the school board members who wrote and approved the contract that they offered to the superintendent.
• bigkahuna

  wkfan;732264 wrote:While I completly agree that any severence package and pension like this for a school district superintendent is absurd.......
  
  Please remember that the superintendent is not a member of the local teachers union, so don't blame this package on any organized body of teachers.
  
  Put the blame squarely on the school board members who wrote and approved the contract that they offered to the superintendent.

  
  That's my point. Can teacher's salaries be high? Yes. However, look at other places that taxpayer money is being "wasted". Brand new stadiums, big pensions for admins....
  
  I just thought that it was a great documentary that shed some light on education spending as a whole in NJ. It did a great job at showing where money goes and how crazy it is.
  
  I still see the benefits of unions in today's society lump me in the group that they are too powerful and need to be minimized to local areas and not state/national.
  
  This link was provided on the documentary. I'm looking at this unbiased. I thought this was an interesting website.
  http://teachersunionexposed.com/about.cfm
• O-Trap

  

  Glory Days;732183 wrote:Haha that is exactly my point, much of what you and others are saying, already takes place. There are big misconceptions out there. No the union does serve purposes, especially when it comes to police, one is they help provide legal support. Especially when dirt bag criminals bring frivolous lawsuits against cops which would bankrupt the average person trying to defend themselves.

  Purely out of curiosity (as I genuinely don't know about this element of a unionized police force), what is it that the Union does to prevent such frivolous lawsuits?
  
  In many cases, however, there are quantifiable metrics that show Unions to be a financial burden on their respective communities. I'd be interested in a nationwide compensatory fluctuation analysis over a couple decades, taking inflation into account. I think there would be a noticeable difference in the average income of a non-union worker and a union worker when compared to economic trends.
  

  Glory Days;732183 wrote:Yeah, that works when making widgets, but you fail to realize that doesn't exactly work with policing or firefighting.

  I get a chuckle out of this.
  
  Do you realize how few non-Union workers are NOT in "widget-making" occupations? Occupations that are not quantifiable using any hard metric?
  
  Do you stop and wonder how we ever survive and feed our families without a Union to protect us? I mean, my employer has no hard metric for determining my performance other than subjective evaluation. Why doesn't he pay me, and those in my position, minimum wage?
  
  Answer: Because the pool he would have to choose from for the job would be a lot leaner, as people who could do so would seek better employment elsewhere. Thus, my employer would be left with a working crew that is far less competent, and even though the difference may not be reflected by a quantifiable metric, it would make his job more difficult, and it might even COST him his job, because his boss(es) are able to measure him subjectively. As such, he will naturally do as much as he can to ensure that evaluation is positive.
  
  The absence of a collective for an employee base whose performance is non-quantifiable is not equitable to receiving compensation that is unfair in light of economic trends.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;732187 wrote:I think the military works fine as far as how our troops are paid. There is a lot of wasteful spending within the military budget though. The military is not unionized so it really isn't a fair comparison of the wasteful spending that municipal governments create. Military budgets have a much wider tax base (national). Municipalities don't have the luxury of hitting every tax base up like the military does. So I'm not sure why you have brought that up, if anything, it weakens your position.

  I understand its not union. but the Federal deficit is that many times larger than Ohio’s, so imagine how much money would be saved if the military was paid on merit and not time in service.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  So they give military promotions based solely on time of service now?
  
  That's news to me.
  
  As for unions helping protect against lawsuits against police or fire, etc., what a bunch of bullshit. Pure bullshit.
  
  I was a state employee who got sued by a union employee because she felt I was unfairly picking on her. She was right, I was "picking" on her, but not unfairly. She was a drunk who left her post to drink at nearby bars. But she claimed all kinds of bias against here -- AND THE UNION THUGS WERE RIGHT BESIDE HER HELPING HER TO KEEP HER JOB.
  
  The state has its own attorneys (as does the city) so THEY are the folks who would defend a police or firefighter if a citizen came after them unjustly. All their union rep is going to do is protect that employee FROM THE CITY if it turns out they, in fact, did do something wrong that resulted in the lawsuit.
• Glory Days

  

  O-Trap;732276 wrote:Purely out of curiosity (as I genuinely don't know about this element of a unionized police force), what is it that the Union does to prevent such frivolous lawsuits?
  In many cases, however, there are quantifiable metrics that show Unions to be a financial burden on their respective communities. I'd be interested in a nationwide compensatory fluctuation analysis over a couple decades, taking inflation into account. I think there would be a noticeable difference in the average income of a non-union worker and a union worker when compared to economic trends.

  Well the union cant really prevent the lawsuits, but it gives advice and helps with the cost for the officer to defend himself against some crack head who claims the officer put the handcuffs on too tight or something.

  O-Trap;732276 wrote:I get a chuckle out of this.
  Do you realize how few non-Union workers are NOT in "widget-making" occupations? Occupations that are not quantifiable using any hard metric?
  Do you stop and wonder how we ever survive and feed our families without a Union to protect us? I mean, my employer has no hard metric for determining my performance other than subjective evaluation. Why doesn't he pay me, and those in my position, minimum wage?
  Answer: Because the pool he would have to choose from for the job would be a lot leaner, as people who could do so would seek better employment elsewhere. Thus, my employer would be left with a working crew that is far less competent, and even though the difference may not be reflected by a quantifiable metric, it would make his job more difficult, and it might even COST him his job, because his boss(es) are able to measure him subjectively. As such, he will naturally do as much as he can to ensure that evaluation is positive.

  So how are the unions not looking out for the people of the city when they want better pay for its fire fighters to attract better firefighters? Kasich said it himself when he justified his pay raise for his aide or whoever it was. So it applies to him, but not every other public worker?

  O-Trap;732276 wrote: The absence of a collective for an employee base whose performance is non-quantifiable is not equitable to receiving compensation that is unfair in light of economic trends.

  How is it unfair, the amount of work police officers and fire fighters do is still the same whether the economy is good or bad, more so when its bad probably. When business is bad for a private company, there is less work, heck, maybe its because the workers are not working as hard and should be selling more if that’s their business.
• Gblock

  some actual research on Merit based pay for teachers
  
  
  Harvard - http://her.hepg.org/content/l8q2334243271116/
  
  Vanderbilt - http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/09/r...
  
  Univ Arkansas - http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/Research/merit_pay...
  
  Economic Policy Institute - http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/books-t...
  
  the harvard study provides much more accurate info than opinions on here thats for sure.
  while i support merit pay as does our union i/we believe it should be based on documentation of things that are put in...ie extra hours, portfolios/videos of lessons and activities, trainings and workshops, research studies that teachers could conduct that are quantifiable...not necessarily what comes out ie...test scores. i also think we should do away with all testing except 8th and 10th grade(or possibly up to 12th if you dont pass OGT the first time)
• sleeper

  

  Glory Days;732183 wrote:Haha that is exactly my point, much of what you and others are saying, already takes place. There are big misconceptions out there. No the union does serve purposes, especially when it comes to police, one is they help provide legal support. Especially when dirt bag criminals bring frivolous lawsuits against cops which would bankrupt the average person trying to defend themselves.

  
  Whatever purpose the Union serves, the private sector finds a way to deal with without Unions. The public will too, in time.
• Glory Days

  

  Writerbuckeye;732379 wrote:So they give military promotions based solely on time of service now?
  That's news to me.

  When did I say they get promotions based on time in service? Even if a soldier never gets promoted ever, they still receive pay increases every 2 years.

  Writerbuckeye;732379 wrote:As for unions helping protect against lawsuits against police or fire, etc., what a bunch of bullshit. Pure bullshit.
  I was a state employee who got sued by a union employee because she felt I was unfairly picking on her. She was right, I was "picking" on her, but not unfairly. She was a drunk who left her post to drink at nearby bars. But she claimed all kinds of bias against here -- AND THE UNION THUGS WERE RIGHT BESIDE HER HELPING HER TO KEEP HER JOB.

  What was the outcome?

  Writerbuckeye;732379 wrote: The state has its own attorneys (as does the city) so THEY are the folks who would defend a police or firefighter if a citizen came after them unjustly. All their union rep is going to do is protect that employee FROM THE CITY if it turns out they, in fact, did do something wrong that resulted in the lawsuit.

  Or say if the officer is involved in a shooting. That officer cant really go to his supervisor for advice for what he should be doing or not doing because that supervisor is probably involved in the investigation.
• Glory Days

  

  sleeper;732397 wrote:Whatever purpose the Union serves, the private sector finds a way to deal with without Unions. The public will too, in time.

  
  So then why do private sector unions exist?
• sleeper

  

  Glory Days;732401 wrote:So then why do private sector unions exist?

  
  They shouldn't. That is a great question, why does the UAW exist? Why does Ford and GM let unions bully them by withholding their labor force?
  
  It's no surprise Ford and GM have had a lot of issues financially, they have to deal with thuggish unions. The only difference between public and private is that the taxpayers are the ones that have to bear the brunt of unions inefficiencies, and in the private, if I don't like unions, I don't have to buy Ford.
• O-Trap

  

  Glory Days;732381 wrote:Well the union cant really prevent the lawsuits, but it gives advice and helps with the cost for the officer to defend himself against some crack head who claims the officer put the handcuffs on too tight or something.

  Ah, understood. In examples like this then, it functions somewhat in the same way as doctors' malpractice insurance?
  

  Glory Days;732381 wrote:So how are the unions not looking out for the people of the city when they want better pay for its fire fighters to attract better firefighters? Kasich said it himself when he justified his pay raise for his aide or whoever it was. So it applies to him, but not every other public worker?

  First, Kasich is a talking head, and I disagreed with that pay raise.
  
  However, what I'm saying is that the Union is unnecessary, because wanting better firefighters is already in the best interest of everyone without the Union.
  

  Glory Days;732381 wrote:How is it unfair, the amount of work police officers and fire fighters do is still the same whether the economy is good or bad, more so when its bad probably.

  That is the same case for any private employee whose work is not defined by a hard metric. A secretary, for example, may actually have more work to do in the lean times, because he or she is concerned with all the tasks associated with other coworkers trying to drum up business. However, until that business plays out, his or her pay will rise or fall with the company's success, regardless of how much or little work he or she does.
  

  Glory Days;732381 wrote:When business is bad for a private company, there is less work, heck, maybe its because the workers are not working as hard and should be selling more if that's their business.

  For the employees whose performance is quantifiable (the "widget makers"), that could be true. It could also be false, though. If the market drops, to compensate, a private manufacturer (for example) may need to sell the widget at a lower price, meaning they need to make and sell MORE to hit the same bottom line. At that point, sales people and manufacturers (employees whose jobs are easily quantifiable) become hellishly busy if they want to keep their job.
  
  If they are not working as hard, they get canned for the more hungry job seeker who is willing to. I've seen that play out more than once.
  
  Also, most businesses have as many, if not more, non-widget maker positions (administrators, secretaries, support, legal, accounting) whose workload may or may not be greater or less in a down economy.
  
  Finally, if a company cannot afford a position, no matter how vital the position, it has no choice but to either go into debt to keep the position in place, or find a way around having that position. The same applies with such services as fire and law-enforcement. They are vital in some form (even if volunteer), but if they cannot be afforded, they cannot be afforded. Squeezing blood from an onion can't be done, no matter how necessary the blood may be.
• O-Trap

  

  Glory Days;732401 wrote:So then why do private sector unions exist?

  This is a FANTASTIC question!
  
  Make no mistake. I know U. S. history enough to know that Unions were absolutely necessary to lay the foundation for rights in the workplace. However, there is so much legislation in place that it is no longer necessary to have a Union.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Glory Days;732399 wrote:When did I say they get promotions based on time in service? Even if a soldier never gets promoted ever, they still receive pay increases every 2 years.
  
  "I understand its not union. but the Federal deficit is that many times larger than Ohio’s, so imagine how much money would be saved if the military was paid on merit and not time in service." This was your quote. Promotions are how military folks get their primary raises, and those are done on merit. Not simply for being there.
  
  What was the outcome?
  
  Or say if the officer is involved in a shooting. That officer cant really go to his supervisor for advice for what he should be doing or not doing because that supervisor is probably involved in the investigation.

  
  As for the outcome...the lawsuit was eventually thrown out. I didn't have to do a thing as my employer's attorneys took care of it (since I did what a supervisor was supposed to do in that situation, and nothing wrong.)